science fiction author, beatmaker, against fascism

Year: 2010 Page 7 of 13

Working Abroad Adventure: Weeks 3 and 4

Path to the beach at the Caracola Hotel.

I can’t believe there are only ten days left in our 6-week working abroad adventure — the time has zipped by (for the most part — it has also crawled along at times).  We’re in the home stretch of an experiment in which we rented out our house in Oakland, rented a house in the coastal jungle of Costa Rica (near Puerto Viejo), and brought our work with us.  We wanted an extended change of scenery without breaking the bank, and we wanted to experience a new place without dying of boredom or sinking into a sea of listlessness.  I acknowledge that boredom and listlessness are not everyone’s experience of extended vacations, and also that not everybody is going to get the “workation” concept (and it has had its ups and downs) but for us it has worked pretty well.  Later, once I’ve had a chance to run the numbers, I’ll share what the trip looked like financially, and also share some thoughts about what we did right and what we did wrong.  But for now I’ll just bring you up to date on the last couple of weeks.

Life is Easier by the Beach

Soon after my last post we decided to move away from our house in the jungle (Casa El Jardin), and rent one of the Caracola Hotel beach houses for the remainder of our stay.  We met Issac, the manager of the Caracola (via another local friend — Matt Grinnell); Issac offered us a very good “low-season” rate for the beach house.  By that point we’d had our fill of jungle living, and jumped at the chance to move to the beach.

Don’t get me wrong, the jungle house was “as advertised”; incredibly beautiful, a giant colorful garden, fast (if somewhat unreliable) internet, and intimate proximity to nature.  The downsides were 1) the mosquitoes were pretty bad, 2) the sheer number, mass, and intensity of insect life in the jungle can be overwhelming to a temperate-zone city dweller, and 3) it was exhausting biking up and down the long, muddy, hilly, slippery-stone covered road (made more difficult with our toddler in the bike seat) every time we wanted to go the beach, buy food, or take our laundry to the lavandería.  Our favorite place to hang out, we discovered, was at the beach in front of the Caracola Hotel; the gentle waves were perfect for our two-year-old daughter.

One of the bugs up in the jungle house.

As an aside, for those of you who have tried to get me to drop four grand on a mountain bike so we can get our muddy trail thrills on (Dan Pardi), let me recommend navigating the steep downhill stretches of Margarita Road on an old fixie with one bent wheel, with your toddler attached, carrying a bag of groceries (including eggs), while it’s raining, with brakes at about 20% capacity.  Now that’s thrilling.

In any case, life near the beach is good.  When we want to get our feet wet we just walk about a hundred feet and hop in the water.  Usually we hit the beach about three times a day; maybe a little soccer in the early morning (before it gets too hot), a quick dip in the afternoon, and usually a long visit in the early evening to enjoy the sunset.  Somehow the sky and the water take on almost the same color; the light is stunning.

Dog running on the beach.

The Two-Dimensional Town

The topographical arrangement of the Puerto Viejo area is line-like; the vast majority of businesses and destinations (including the beaches) are along a single road.  One side effect of this configuration is that whenever you go out, you’re likely to run into everyone you know (unless they’re home in bed).  You’ll either see them on the road, going one way or the other, or you’ll see them hanging out somewhere; maybe at Cocles Beach, or Caribe del Sol, or Caribeans.

This line-like arrangement seems to spill over into the social realm as well; all people here are connected; everyone knows everyone (and has an opinion about everyone); there is nowhere to hide and there are no secrets.  In other words, it’s like small towns everywhere.

On another layer, there are the busloads of backpackers and tourists that come through every day; people are constantly shuttled in and shuttled out.  That includes us, of course, but our longer stay puts us in a slightly different category.  We’ve been here long enough to get friendly greetings, or at least nods of recognition, from many of the locals.  We’re getting to know the place, and the people.

The little school in the jungle.

We’ve entertained the idea of coming back for a longer stint.  We even looked at a little school in the jungle where our kid could go.  The school was charming; a beautiful location and warm and friendly staff who obviously knew what they were doing.  Get this — tuition is $100.  A year.  The average wage here is only $2 or $3 an hour — that’s why (some) of the prices are so low.  But it’s those jaw-dropping comparisons — the cost of preschool here vs. the cost of preschool in the Bay Area — that really make you think twice about where you live and why.

Invite The Family

We invited the whole family to visit us during our workation, and two family members took us up on the offer.  My mom, a reluctant adventurer (she complains about all the risks of traveling, and then goes and does it anyway), and Kia’s dad (who is fluent in Spanish and has traveled a great deal in Central and South America) both came to visit (at different times).  For each of them it was vacation (as opposed to workation) and both grandparents enjoyed their visits.  It was great having them here, both to enjoy time together as a (larger) family, and also for the extra help with our kid.  Having enough time to actually work has been a consistent challenge.

with Nana Ina

On Crime, and Swords

Our friend Eric Haller carries a sheathed machete with him at all times.  He claims its a deterrent; so a would-be miscreant will “pick the other guy.”  As a fellow ex-Dungeons & Dragons player, I’m dubious — I think the guy just likes carrying a sword around (and he’s finally found a place where that’s socially acceptable).  But there is crime in the Puerto Viejo area.  At least, that’s what everyone tells you.

At Art Cafe, not worried about crime.

I think every single person we’ve met has warned us about crime in one way or another.  This is the beach where you will get mugged at sunset.  This is the stretch of road where machete-wielding youths will rob you blind.  Let’s write down the serial number of the bike you are buying so that when it gets stolen you’ll have some record of purchase.  The manager of our jungle house insisted that we should be locking up the open kitchen every time we leave the house (the kitchen area closed up like a wooden cube with heavy, medieval-style hanging doors) or thieves would come take everything — our blender, our plates — everything!  We ignored his warnings, and nobody stole our blender.  In fact, we haven’t yet experienced or witnessed any crime at all (with one exception — see below).

My ideas about crime in the Puerto Viejo area are as follows:

  1. The crime rate is not particularly high — certainly not any higher than Oakland.
  2. Residents are very concerned about crime; one reason is that any crime is a huge threat to the main industry (tourism).
  3. People look out for each other and feel responsible for each other (and thus warn about crime).
  4. Tourists are the main targets, especially drunk, obnoxious tourists (there is some sense perhaps, among the locals, that these types have it coming).
  5. Crime is highly localized — just like anywhere else.  There are areas that are quite dangerous to hang out in at various times.  Visually, these areas don’t look seedy or dangerous or rough — they look like an idyllic stretch of beach or a meandering coastal road.

The last point is the most important.  I think it generally is important to heed the warnings of the locals.  They may be overcautious, but they know what’s up.  If I saw a Japanese tourist wandering around West & MacArthur, with a three thousand dollar camera hanging from their neck, I might direct them a few blocks northwest towards the Temescal District.  The Temescal area used to be a pretty rough area itself, ten years ago, but now it’s a thriving, relatively low-crime commercial district.  But West & MacArthur, just a few blocks away, is a fine place to buy drugs.  A quick check of a statistical crime map of Oakland confirms this suspicion.

Armed with a rapier, yet somehow … not intimidating.

So, the real question — if I lived here, would I carry a sword?  Hell yes! I mean, why not?  In Oakland, if you carry a sword and try to defend yourself from getting mugged, you will just get shot.  But guns are uncommon here.  The muggings we’ve been warned about are either at “machete point” or via beating by fist.  In both cases, a sharp blade could be a real deterrent.

But I don’t think I would opt for a machete.  With a rapier, I could utilize my fencing training (don’t laugh — I ranked in the top ten of all Bay Area youth fencers in one tournament).  On the other hand, while a rapier might have inspired fear in 17th Century Italy, it might appear to be a bit foppish these days.  Putting parry-ripostes and double-disengages aside, a katana, with its historical reputation as a decapitating device, would probably be a better bet.  I would love to draw a samurai sword against a machete-wielding mugger and see the look on his face.  You want a sword fight?  Bring it on.

I did have a run in with a motorcycle gang.  I was bicycling up Margarita Road towards the jungle house, my laptop slung over my shoulder in a red grocery bag, when a guy ran by me, at full speed, with a look in his eyes that can only be described as abject terror.  Up ahead, a man had gotten off of his motorcycle and was hacking at something, or somebody, with a machete.  These weren’t little chops — they were full overhead swings.  Was somebody being chopped to pieces?  The something turned out to be a bicycle.  I watched, with equal parts trepidation and fascination, as the man picked up the mangled bike and hurled it over a nearby fence.  He saw me, and glared.

Giving me stink-eye the whole time, the man sheathed his machete and got back on his motorcycle.  Farther ahead, toward the top of a hill, another man waited on an idling motorcycle.  The guy closer to me looked mean, and the bicycle chopping made me question his sanity.

I considered my options.  If I turned and biked away, he could easily overtake me and cut me down with his blade.  It did seem in my favor that the blade was sheathed.  His beef had been with the other guy, and the hapless bicycle, right?  Still, he looked dangerous.  I ultimately opted to bike by slowly and say “Hola.”  The man grunted in response, and he and his friend rode off.

Later, riding back home from the jungle house (I’d ridden up there to use the fast internet), I encountered the guy I’d seen running away, along with his friend, retrieving his worse-for-wear (sliced tire, shredded seat) bicycle from the brush.  I wasn’t sure what to say, but I felt a need to say something since I’d obviously been a witness to at least part of the drama.  I settled on something like “That guy was loco!”

“I’m gonna keeel him,” said mangled bicycle man.  “I’m gonna cut him up good.”

“Okay!” I said.  I added “Motorcycle gangs!” with a shrug, as in “You never know what those kooky motorcycle gangs are gonna do,” and pedaled on my way.

Update: I got the scoop from Eric H. on the reason for this altercation; it was a case of mistaken identity.

Wall-climbing lizard.

Physical Costs and Benefits

Living in tropics can be rough on your body.  Even though the risks of malaria and dengue are very low, the mosquito bites are still a drag.  I’ve lost some muscle mass — I’m generally too tired from bike-riding to want to do any kind of strength training.  On some days I’ve suffered a general malaise and mild tourista — no doubt my body adjusting to foreign (for me) strains of microbes.  The water is Costa Rica is generally considered “drinkable” by U.S. standards, but we’ve felt better since running it through a Brita filter.  We’re probably consuming more pesticides than usual, considering we’re making zero effort to eat organically, and we’re also doing other things that are probably horrible for us, like using aluminum cookware.

On the other hand, I’m tanner, leaner, and fitter than I’ve been in a long time.  The challenges to my immune system will probably serve me well in the long run.  In terms of both health and safety, most parts of Costa Rica fall into the “reasonable risk” category, at least in my book.  I don’t want to be the type of person that avoids entire countries and cultures because there is a very small chance of getting a horrible disease (like Chagas), or getting machete chopped, or eating a few extra doses of pesticides.  Life is rough on your body.  Life is, indeed, a terminal disease.

Will We Do It Again?

Yes, definitely.  Workationing is a blast.  Now that we’ve done it once, we have some good ideas for how to improve the experience.  I’ll get into those in detail in the wrap-up post.

Why hello there big beetle.

Bananas at the farmer’s market.

with Grandpa at the beach.

The Singularity Already Happened – Part I

Buckle your seat belts, here we go.

In 1993 science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge authored a paper introducing and describing the idea of The Singularity, a near-future Rubicon for humanity; we create machines with superhuman intelligence, thus changing everything forever.  In the post-Singularity world, all the old rules are thrown out, progress accelerates exponentially, and the real action shifts away from humanity and towards our cybernetic spawn.  Human beings are relegated to the sidelines as intelligent machines take over the world (or, in darker variations of the scenario, humans are enslaved or exterminated).  In the best-case scenario, super-intelligent, immortal man-machine hybrids peacefully co-exist with the “unaltered” (i.e. regular humans).

Vernor Vinge -- this joker makes up wacky ideas for a living.

Vinge’s paper on The Singularity is clever, thought-provoking, and insightful.  It’s exactly the kind of “how big can you think” speculation a good science fiction writer should come up with.  Unfortunately, some groups of otherwise intelligent people seem to have swallowed Vinge’s paper whole and uncritically, elevating his fevered speculations to a kind of futurism gospel.  Vinge’s paper is loaded with tantalizing specificity; The Singularity will probably occur between 2005 and 2030; it will be preceded by four “means” that we can currently observe unfolding in our technology newsfeeds (biological intelligence enhancement, advancement of computer/human interfaces, large computer networks becoming more intelligent, and the development of machine intelligence and the possibility of machine consciousness).  This specificity gives the paper the feel of prophecy, at least to the unsophisticated reader.  Science-fiction connoisseurs, on the other hand, will see through the purposefully affected serious tone of Vinge’s paper; in fact he is riffing, presenting a range of wild possibilities as if they might actually happen.  That’s what science fiction writers do.

V.C. wunderkind Steve Jurvetson at The Singularity Summit, explaining how The Singularity will involve lots of corporate logos.

The inventor/entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil is particularly fond of the Singularity concept, and has written extensively about the subject in books such as The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near.  He is also a co-founder of the Singularity University. Recently featured in the New York Times, Singularity University describes its mission as  “to assemble, educate and inspire a cadre of leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity’s grand challenges.”  I’m skeptical; Singularity U seems like a really good way to separate rich white male tech nerds (for the most part, anyway) from fifteen thousand dollars, in exchange for nine days of hyperactive white-board scribbling, gallons of free coffee, and a bag of Silicon Valley schwag (including a personal DNA test kit).  Exponential technological progress is going to change everything.  We don’t know how exactly, but there’s going to be a big change and then everything will be different.  It might have something to do with your smart phone, social media, artificial intelligence, anti-aging technologies, space travel, and/or renewable energy!

There’s probably no harm in the existence of Singularity University.  By all accounts the people who run it are idealistic (not hucksters), and the people who take the courses can generally afford it.  But what is it, really?  It’s just more riffing, just like Vinge’s original paper.  The professors at Singularity University aren’t going to bring us any closer to The Singularity, because The Singularity is illusory.

WHY THE SINGULARITY WON’T HAPPEN

Let’s examine some of the premises of Vinge’s original paper, and discuss them in turn.

Premise #1: Improvements in computer/human interfaces will result in superhuman intelligence.

We’ve already had some improvements in computer/human interfaces, and they’ve proved to be fun and convenient.  The mouse is nice, as is the trackpad.  The portable computing device (laptop or smart phone) comes in really handy.  And we can easily imagine an implant that allows us to access the internet via thought alone, or a contact lens micro-screen that projects data over our visual field.

Oh -- that's where they are.

But let’s get real for a second.  Those of us with internet access already have near-instantaneous access to a good chunk of the world’s knowledge, right at our fingertips.  Has it changed us that much?  Instead of arguing about who was in what movie, we just look it up.  Where are the Canary Islands, exactly?  Just look it up.  What’s the four hundredth digit of pi?  Just look it up!

Having access to unlimited knowledge hasn’t changed us that much.  It’s fun, and enormously convenient, but it’s not revolutionary.

Well, what about access to computing power?  Computers can run enormously powerful simulations, and do enormously complex computations in the blink of an eye.  Won’t that make a difference?

Once again, look at how we currently use the enormous amount of computing power available to us, and project forward.  What do we do with it now?  We watch TV on our computers.  We play computer games that accurately represent real-world physics.  Maybe our screen-saver analyzes astronomical data, in search of signals from ET, or folds proteins with the spare cycles, but in neither case do we pay much attention.

Improving the interface between brain and computer isn’t going to make a big difference, because the brain/computer analogy is weak.  They aren’t really the same thing.  We’ve already gone pretty far down the computer/human interface road, with the big result being increased access to entertainment (and porn).

Premise #2: Increases in computer processing speed, network size and activity, and/or developments in artificial intelligence will result in the emergence of superhuman intelligence.

Daniel Dennett has an interesting counter-argument for people who like to speculate about superhuman intelligence by comparing human intelligence to animal intelligence, and then extrapolating to superhuman intelligence.  The speculation goes something like this; cats can’t do algebra — they can’t even conceive of it — but people can do algebra.  So couldn’t there exist an order of mind that can perform complex operations and computations that human beings can’t even conceive of? Some kind of super-advanced alien (or future A.I.) mathematics that would befuddle even the Stephen Hawking types?

Dennett points out the problem with that argument; humans possess (we have evolved) a completely different cognitive faculty that cats don’t possess.  We have the ability to think abstractly.  We have the ability to run simulations in our minds and imagine various futures and outcomes (we can run scenarios).  We can think symbolically and manipulate symbols (words, numbers, musical notation, languages of all sorts) in infinite numbers of configurations (why infinite?  because we can also invent new symbols).  In short, human beings can perform abstract mental operations.

Cats have a different relationship with symbols.

This is not to say that cats will never evolve symbolic cognition, or that the human brain has stopped evolving.  But once we possess the imaginative faculty, once we evolve the ability to perform abstract mental operations, once the cat is out of the bag (so to speak) then there can exist no idea that by its very nature is off limits to us.  Sure, some areas are difficult to contemplate.  Quantum mechanics falls into this category.  Quantum mechanics is entirely outside of our range of sensory experience (as human beings).  It’s counter-intuitive; it doesn’t necessarily make sense.  But this doesn’t mean we can’t think about it, and imagine it, and create analogies about it, and perform quantum calculations, and conduct quantum level experiments.  Of course we can.

I believe Dennett makes this argument in Freedom Evolves (but I don’t have it handy to check — it might be in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea).

I’m not saying that humans are the “end of the line” or the “peak of the pyramid.”  It’s possible, even probable, that our descendants (biological or cyborg or virtual) will be smarter than us.  It’s also likely that the future of evolution (and I mean evolution in the broadest sense) holds “level jumps” that will change the very nature of reality (or rather, add layers).  Perhaps our descendants (or another group’s descendants) will be able to manipulate matter with their mindsAkira style.  Now that would change things up.

Even the polarphant must obey the rules of Darwinian evolution.

My point is that we should question the idea that superhuman intelligence can even exist.  Certainly superhuman something-or-other can exist, but intelligence and consciousness are the wrong vector to examine.  Sure, it’s probable that something out there (either elsewhere in the galaxy, or in the future) is or will be smarter and/or more aware/sophisticated than we are, but I question the idea that an entirely different order of cognition can exist.  The cognitive space is like the chemistry space; there is not an entirely different set of elements somewhere else in the universe (or in the future or in the past).  It’s all chemistry: hydrogen and helium and lithium and so forth.  Same for the quantum physics space, once we have all the quarks and gluons figured out on our end we can surmise that it’s pretty much the same stuff everywhere.  Same for the biological space — of course not every animal in the universe is going to have a genetic code sequenced out of adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine, but I’m guessing the rules of Darwinian evolution are universal.  The same is true for cognition/intelligence/consciousness — it’s a space that includes manipulating abstract symbols, imagining and simulating possible futures, performing calculations, and being aware of one’s own perceptions/thoughts/emotions/identity (meta-awareness or self-consciousness).  Of course you can divide up the cognition/consciousness space into various developmental sub-levels (Ken Wilber is a big fan of this) but I don’t buy the idea that there are vastly different orders of cognition and consciousness that exist somewhere out there, in the realm of all possibility.

A very large truck ... but still a truck.

The other problem with Premise #2 is the idea that making something bigger or faster changes its nature or function.  If you increase the speed of a computer, then it can do what it already does much more quickly.  With the right programming, for example, a computer can explore a logical decision tree and look for a certain outcome; thus computers can be programmed to be extremely good at chess.  A very large network is just that — a big network — it can facilitate communications among billions of people and quasi-intelligent agents (bots, computer viruses, and so forth).  But it doesn’t become something else just because you make it bigger or faster.

New functionality does not emerge unless new structures emerge.  In nature, new structures can emerge via the process of evolution.  In the realm of technology, new structures and functions are designed, or they evolve out of systems that are designed.  We’re not going to see spontaneous intelligence (superhuman or not) emerge from the internet unless we turn the internet into a giant evolution simulator.  You could of course argue that is already is, but if so, the evolving agents are funny cat videos and naked lady pictures.  It’s memetic evolution; the funniest or sexiest or most heart-warming videos and pictures and posts thrive (get reposted/replicated) and the more complicated long-winded posts (like this one) enjoy the anonymity of obscurity.  It’s not the kind of network that is going to spontaneously generate superhuman intelligence.

Only the strongest (lolcat) will survive.

Premise #3: The emergence of superhuman intellect will result in a radical transformation of the world.

Smart people, rather myopically, tend to take this idea for granted.  Of course super-intelligence will be super important!

Historically, extreme intelligence only amounts to something when it is paired with other human qualities, like ruthless ambition, innovative inventiveness, disciplined practice, or preternatural persistence (Thomas Edison, for example, had all of those qualities).  Look around — don’t we all know someone with a shut-in uncle who got a perfect score on their SAT’s?  Or an unemployed, weed-dealing neighbor with a PhD in Semiotics?  Intelligence is a nice thing to have, but on its own it’s just a brain burning brightly — until it’s all burned up.

Can you read? Thank Johannes.

When extreme intelligence is paired with motivating factors, the world does get changed.  Gutenberg’s movable type printing press has proved influential, to say the least.  The ambitious work of Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla gave us cheap, universally available electricity, long-burning light bulbs, and dozens of other important inventions.  Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Woz, and many others ushered in the era of personal computers.  Maybe one day we’ll have a particularly ambitious A.I. contribute a new mobile gadget or something.  But FTL travel?  Teleportation?  Singularity-level tech?  I don’t think so.

Look at the A.I. curve.  It’s much different than the processor speed curve.  The latter is going straight up; the former goes up and down in fits and starts.  The most promising approaches to A.I. are those that are attempting to reverse engineer the brain, and how the brain learns (artificial childhood).  Maybe, if those go really well, we’ll get an artificial inventor who will invent cool stuff.  But maybe we’ll get an A.I. that majors in Semiotics, proves unemployable, and deals weed for a living.

This post is getting too long, and I don’t want to completely doom its chances of reproductive success.  I’ll save the rest of my thoughts on this subjects for Part II, which will include:

  • When and where the real Singularity happened
  • Why I might be wrong (and in what way)
  • Vernor Vinge’s response

Radical Work Autonomy In Marriage

Want to experience zero-G marriage?

Kia and I have recently stumbled across a principle that has significantly altered (for the better) our dynamic regarding who does what work and how we each feel about it.

To be clear, I’m not talking about the work of marriage.  Honestly, I don’t think being married to somebody should be that much work.  It should be fun (at least most of the time), and relatively easy.  The real work is finding the right person — someone you love for who they are, someone you feel relaxed around, and someone you’re physically attracted to (and vice versa in all cases — which is sometimes the harder bit).

What I’m talking about is the work in marriage; who takes out the trash, who does the dishes, who takes care of the kid, and so forth.  Most of this work exists for single people as well, but if you’re married (or live with your romantic partner) then questions surface — questions of division of labor.

Secret Balance Sheet — A Dysfunctional System

Keeping track in your head?

Division of labor is often a source of conflict in a marriage.  A common dynamic is for one (or both) partners to feel like they are doing more work, or more valuable/important/difficult work, than the other person.  Maybe they have a secret balance sheet in their head, on which they are constantly accruing credits on their own side and debits on their partner’s side (or it is the other way around? — I always get those accounting terms mixed up).  If each partner has a secret balance sheet (one that is never discussed), then there’s never any chance to reconcile the two.  A giant blow-up argument is inevitable; the secret balance sheets are eventually brought out into the open and are found to differ massively.  The “you owe me” dynamic is destructive — it leads to resentment on both sides of the relationship.

Do you know any couples where one person supported the other one financially through a degree program, and then as soon that person graduated they dumped the partner that supported them?  From the outside it looks cruel and callous; the student who was being supported was obviously just using the other person, right?  Well, maybe.  But an alternate interpretation is that after graduation, the secret balance sheets were compared, and didn’t match.  The partner who was being supported financially was presented with a gigantic “you owe me” bill which didn’t line up with their own view of things.  Perhaps they felt that while they were in school, being financially supported, they were contributing to the relationship in other ways.  Or maybe they felt that because they were working so hard, things must have somehow been equal in the relationship.  When they suddenly realize that the other partner has been expecting something in return for financially supporting their broke ass for all these years, they freak out.  Faced with the giant debt, they bail.

I’m not trying to justify the behavior of either partner in my hypothetical situation — I’m just saying that the secret balance sheet method is a bad system — one that leads to disappointment and heartbreak.

Open Balance Sheet — A Less Dysfunctional System

A somewhat healthier dynamic (which I think describes my work-sharing dynamic with Kia before we discovered our new principle) is to communicate regularly about who does what and who is responsible for what, in essence frequently reconciling the balance sheets.  Thus, no hidden debts accrue.

This kind of arrangement can exist with varying degrees of symmetry.  Maybe one partner contributes more money, and the other contributes more household work (childcare, cooking, cleaning, shopping, social planning, vacation planning, handling finances, etc.).  Kia and I both work — she earns a bit more hourly but I have more passive income (from music royalties), so we contribute the same amount of money to our household fund.  On the other hand, she spends more time with our daughter (two-year-old girls tend to be slightly more focused on mommy — I try not to take it personally) so I try to make up for that by doing more cleaning, and more household organizing.  It doesn’t really matter what the division of labor is, as long as neither partner feels like they’re getting the short of the stick.  It’s important to remember that 1) there’s a built-in efficiency boost to co-habitating; if you didn’t live with someone you’d both be taking out the garbage and paying the electricity bill, and 2) some degree of asymmetry is probably a good thing; what is difficult for one person might be easy for the other.

Sounds like a pretty good system, right?  It is — but with the extra work generated by parenthood, Kia and I would still sometimes get irritated or snippy with each other around work issues, despite the fact that both of us were working hard.  Was there just too much work to do?  Maybe some disharmony is inevitable for parents of a young child (or children) who also both work, and who also both have artistic pursuits.

Origins of the Principle — Home Improvement

The prequel to our new work-sharing principle came about as we were contemplating our long list of home improvement projects.  We were making very slow progress on our list, while at the same time constantly adding new items.  We’re in the process of converting our garage into an office for Kia (so that Kia’s current office can become a bedroom for our daughter).  It’s a lot of work, but our logic was that it would be easier and cheaper than selling our house and buying a bigger one.  The logic still holds, but the project has been dragging on for many months.  In addition to that project, the house needs painting, the deck needs some work, the gate needs fixing, and so on and so forth.  There’s no end to it.  We started to feel overwhelmed.

In response to these negative feelings, we devised three principles of home improvement, as follows:

  1. Only do one disruptive project a time. For example, don’t try to remodel the kitchen and the bathroom at the same time.  Regain total functionality in one area before tearing up the next thing.
  2. Make it better than it was before. You’d think this would be obvious.  It’s home improvement, right?  But sloppy work is all too common.  Spesh has dubbed the previous owners of our house “The D.I.Y. couple”; there is evidence of sloppy paint jobs, unfinished mouldings, unevenly placed electric outlets, etc.  This principle helps us resist the urge to rush jobs just to “get them done.”
  3. Only do what you feel like doing. The list will never be completed.  All houses are in a constant state of decay, and all you can do is stem the tide.  Keeping this in mind helps take the pressure off.  Each person can work on whatever they want to work on — whatever they feel like needs doing.

We found ourselves enjoying the last principle in particular.  If one of us feels like painting, we put on our painter pants and pick up a brush.  No artificial deadlines, no schedules, and no nagging.  Do what you feel.

We’re making progress at the same rate as before, if not slightly faster.  I’m not sure when exactly, but I’m confident that our daughter will eventually have her own bedroom.  If she starts demanding it sooner, we may hand her a paint brush.

An earlier home improvement project — The Light Bar (designed and constructed by Dave Shanks and featured in Ready Made magazine)


Getting To The Principle

Recently, for various reasons, Kia was thinking about the term “guilt-tripping” and what it meant exactly.  She asked me for my definition, which resulted in the following conversation (this version is much condensed):

Me:  ” ‘Guilt-tripping’ is what you do when you want the other person to want to do something, as opposed to just asking them to do it.”

Her:  “Do I do that?  Do I guilt-trip you?”

Me:  “Yeah.  Sometimes.”

Kia has an unusual, one might even say preternatural, to instantly change her behavior once she makes up her mind to do so (I, on the other hand, usually have a time-delay of one to ten years).  Kia completely stopped guilt-tripping me from that moment forward.  Instead, if she wanted me to do something, she would just ask me to do it, politely and directly.  Usually I don’t mind doing something even if I don’t want to do it, so the new dynamic worked better (much more so than the previous dynamic, wherein she would drop hints about what she wanted me to do, and I would miss or ignore those hints, and then be confused as to why I was in trouble).

This was a big step towards our new principle, but we weren’t quite there yet.  We arrived at the other half of the equation when I recently asked her if she could finish putting away some dishes I had just washed.  I’d been pulled away from my dish-washing task mid-stream — some time-dependent errand I needed to run (I forget what) — but I really wanted to job to be completed (in a slightly OCD kind of way).  Since I had to run off and do something else, I asked Kia if she could finish the task for me.  I may or may not have said please.

Be very glad they are smaller than you.

I returned from my errand (whatever is was) to find the dishes not yet put away, and my wife feeling resentful about the request.  She explained why.  It has gotten dark in my absence, and Kia had felt nervous about working downstairs in our wide-open-to-the-jungle house (we’re temporarily living in Costa Rica).  It wasn’t an unreasonable fear; we had already sighted howler monkeys and agouti nearby, giant jungle rats running through the kitchen, and one morning we found a paw print on the table (either dog or jaguar — the two look remarkably similar).  In addition to the jungle proximity issue, she had witnessed a horrifying drama unfold on the kitchen counter; a live moth being forcibly dismantled by large black jungle ants.  We have since moved to a beach house.  In any case she had felt the burden of my request quite heavily.  It hadn’t helped that I had delivered it a little tersely.  In my mind it was just an off-hand request, a preference — no big deal if she didn’t feel like doing it.  But she had perceived the request with more weight, and was a little upset.

We talked about it, and came to a joint realization.  It’s a drag to have someone else control your agenda, even a little bit.  I had tried to use Kia’s work units as my own, assigning a task the way I might assign a task to myself.  In the process, I had circumvented her work autonomy.

Not that different.


The Breakthrough Principle

Psychologists who study motivation have known for a long time, via numerous, oft-replicated experiments, that one of the best ways to motivate a person is to give them more autonomy.  People, in general, like to work.  They especially like to contribute and to feel needed and appreciated by their peers.  What they don’t like is to be told exactly what do, how to do it, and when to do it.

The same is true in marriage.  Unless you’re married to a lazy bum or a mammoni, your partner probably likes to work; to contribute to the household.  They also have a strong desire to do it — the work — their way.  Nobody likes being micro-managed (or even managed, when it comes down to it).

So what’s the principle?

Both partners are free to do, or not do, whatever work/tasks they feel like doing, when they feel like doing them.  Asking your partner to do something is allowed, but only as you might ask a friend (politely), and the other person is free to cheerfully decline without fear of repercussions.  No guilt-tripping, delegating, or nagging allowed.  Do what you feel.  Radical work autonomy.

So How Does It Work?

Pretty well, so far.  It’s not that there isn’t a balance sheet — of course there is.  We’ll still have conversations about who is responsible for what — a constantly moving target.  So it’s not that different from the Open Balance Sheet method discussed above.

What’s different is the moment-to-moment dynamic.  There’s a new respect for the other person’s emotional state, in regards to work.  Sometimes a person is out of willpower, and the smallest request can feel like a giant weight.  So now … there’s more slack.  What if something needs doing and nobody feels like doing it?  Usually someone steps up.  If not, it gets done later, or maybe it didn’t really need doing.  Sometimes tasks just go away.

For the most part, I think we’re more efficient.  What needs doing gets done more easily, and we have more energy and attention to do what we enjoy, and to enjoy each others’ company.  There’s definitely less resentment and struggle around division of labor issues.  It’s like R.O.W.E. for the home — you immediately weed out the bums (neither of us, fortunately), and after that it’s all increased productivity and happier people.  It’s free freedom.

I don’t mean to imply that we’ve discovered some kind of magical, argument-free zone in which we live in perfect harmony, subtly communicating our preferences with loving non-verbal signals and sharing the household work with perfect equality and efficiency.  That would be a little too precious, wouldn’t it?  Nah, we still sometimes bicker and get irritated with each other.  But there has been a real breakthrough — a mutual realization that any attempt to delegate, manage, or in any way control the other person’s work autonomy is going to backfire.  Of course we still ask each other to do things (very politely).  Of course we each have a different awareness of what needs to get done in certain areas.  But we’ve committed to abandoning the habit of directing each others’ actions.  We still backslide at times, but we catch ourselves at it (or call each other on it) more often than not.

Freedom In Marriage

It’s a truism that what you sacrifice for the stability, comfort, and warmth of marriage (or any long-term, committed, intimate relationship) is freedom.  A more nuanced view is that each couple decides how much freedom they want to grant each other in each area of life.  Turning up the freedom dial in a given area usually has both costs and benefits.  If you crank up the sexual autonomy dial (open marriage, to whatever degree) then you might gain excitement and the thrill of sexual novelty, but the cost might be jealousy, emotional distance, and long complicated conversations about what is and isn’t allowed and how everybody is feeling (what The Ferret calls “the sex bureaucracy“).  If you turn up the spatial/geographic autonomy dial, perhaps living in different houses (or even different cities), or traveling separately for extended periods of time, then you might experience alienation, or just drifting apart (“separate lives” — that’s probably what happened to Al and Tipper).

The work autonomy dial seems to operate differently.  I don’t see what the costs are when you turn this one up; they’re illusory.  If you’ve married a person who likes to contribute and feel needed (and most people do — watch the video below), then the work still gets done.

So why not crank the dial to eleven?

Jaguar Rescue Center (with baby sloth videos)

An incredibly cute baby three-toed sloth; these guys are responsible for a significant percentage of Costa Rica's eco-tourism industry.

I’m currently living in Costa Rica with my family, near Puerto Viejo, in the midst of a working abroad experiment (we’re calling it a “workation”).  Recently, on the recommendation of several friends and acquaintances, we visited the Jaguar Rescue Center.  This unique organization, started by a herpetologist and a gorilla expert, functions to rescue and rehabilitate injured, mistreated, and/or confiscated animals from the local area.  During our tour we met baby howler monkeys and baby sloths who had fallen from the trees (otherwise a death sentence for both types of animal), snakes discovered by residents who would have otherwise met the sharp side of a machete, big cats rescued by customs agents otherwise destined for lives as leashed pets in Kuwait, a baby cayman discovered in a local creek, and numerous frogs, who, as far as I could tell, were just enjoying the giant, lily-pad covered pond.

A young ocelot -- note the giant eyes for night hunting. He looks cute, but this guy recently went after a large dog.

The Jaguar Rescue Center is not-for-profit, and receives no government support.  They’re not really part of the eco-tourism industry (though they of course attract eco-tourists); their mission is solely to protect and heal at-risk animals and help them return to their natural lives in the jungle.  The cages open at least once a day (or night, for the big cats) to allow the animals to leave if they wish.  Some leave and then come back for a time, like the young orphaned jaguar who had never had a mother to teach him not to hunt porcupines.  He slunk back to the rescue center to recover from a faceful of quills, then left again, a fully healed and much wiser beast.

It's always nice when someone feels comfortable around you.

The baby howler monkeys regularly interact with a couple of local troops who live in the nearby trees, and eventually leave the rescue center to join one of them (usually monkey romance is the deciding factor).  One feature of the tour is the option to enter the cage where the baby howler monkeys hang out, and let them climb on you.  They’re quite friendly and fearless, and immediately clamber onto the visitors.  One of the monkeys started chewing on one young woman’s hair.  I was used more like a tree branch, as you can see in the picture.  It’s a strange feeling to have a monkey hanging off of you, supported only by its tail wrapped around your neck.  Not uncomfortable, but weird.  Those tails are incredibly strong.

Lying in the food bowl = acceptable sloth table manners (youtube video below).

The baby sloths were the highlight of the tour, especially for our two-year-old daughter.  As you can see, they’re cute.  Really cute — cuddly and adorable.  The two-toed sloth (the orange one), has a peak of fur on its back that helps the rainwater drain off.  It looks just like a faux-hawk.

Both sloths and monkeys often get injured in power lines.  There have been efforts to get the government to install “collars” at the base of the power line poles to prevent animals from climbing them, a relatively cheap fix that could save hundreds of animals from life-threatening burns.  You would think the Costa Rican government, with its generally strong commitment to protecting the environment and supporting eco-tourism, would be all over this.  Evidently there is still progress to be made.  I can hardly be critical, coming from nation that has just hosted what might be the worst environmental disaster of all time, but I’m glad the Jaguar Rescue Center is working hard to protect the stunningly beautiful wildlife of Costa Rica.

Unfortunately their website doesn’t have an easy way to donate, like a Paypal button or credit card form, but if you feel moved to support their efforts I hope that doesn’t discourage you.  Give them a call and arrange a donation.  And if you’re ever in the Puerto Viejo area, by all means do the tour.  It’s informative, fun, and monkeys might chew on your hair.


What is Metaprogramming?

John C. Lilly, the only scientist to have two horror films based on his life.

For a number of decades I’ve been interested in self-improvement via a method I like to call metaprogramming.  I was first exposed to the term via John C. Lilly’s Programming and Metaprogramming in the Human Biocomputer (a summary report to Lilly’s employer at the time, The National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH]).  Lilly explored the idea that all human behavior is controlled by genetic and neurological programs, and that via intense introspection, psychedelic drugs, and isolation tanks, human beings can learn to reprogram their own computers.  Far out, man.

As the fields of psychology, neurophysiology, cognitive science have progressed, we’ve learned that the computer/brain analogy has its limitations.  As for psychedelics, they have their limitations as well; they are so effective at disrupting rigid mental structures (opening up minds), that they can leave their heavy users a bit lacking in structure.  From my own observations, what the heavy user of psychedelics stands to gain in creativity, he may lose in productivity, or stability, or coherence.

Those issues aside, I still love the term metaprogramming.  We are creatures of habit (programs), and one of the most effective (if not only) way we can modify our own behavior is by hacking our own habits.  We can program our programs, thus, metaprogramming.  This is a slightly different use of the term than Lilly’s; what I call metaprogramming he probably would have called selfmetaprogramming (he used metaprograms to refer to higher level programs in the human biocomputer; habits and learned knowledge and cultural norms as opposed to instincts and other “hardwired” behaviors).

Effective Metaprogramming

Effective metaprogramming requires a degree of self-awareness and self-observation.  It also requires a forgiving attitude towards oneself; we can more clearly observe and take responsibility for our own behaviors (including the destructive ones), if we refrain from unnecessary self-flagellation.

Most importantly, effective metaprogramming requires clear targets for behavior.  In my experience, coming up with these targets takes an enormous amount of time and energy.  It’s hard to decide how you want to behave, in every area of your life.  It’s much easier to just continue on cruise control, relying on your current set of habits to carry you towards whatever fate you’re currently pointed at.

And what if you pick a target for your own behavior, implement it, and don’t like the results?  Course corrections are part of the territory.

Religion (Do It Our Way)

If you don’t want to come up with your own set of behavioral guidelines, there’s always someone willing to offer (or sell) you theirs.  Moses, lugging around his ten commandments, or Tony Robbins, with his DVDs.

Looks like we might be down to five commandments.

Religion has historically offered various sets of metaprogramming tools; rules for how to behave, and in some cases, techniques and practices to help you out (like Buddhist meditation). If you decide to follow or join a religion, you have to watch out for the extra baggage.  Some religions come with threats if you don’t follow the rules.  The threats can be real (banishment from the group), or made up (banishment to Hell).  Judaism is perhaps the exception; there are lots of rules but the main punishment for not following them (as far as I can tell) is that you simply become a less observant Jew.

I’m an atheist, more or less, and a fan of the scientific method and scientific inquiry.  I also appreciate the work the philosopher/evolutionary biologists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, both of whom have taken up strong stands against organized religion.  These stands are excusable, insofar as they attack outmoded religious beliefs (creationism, the afterlife, inferiority of women, and so forth) or crime (like the abuse of children by priests — Dawkins is actually trying to arrest the Pope).  But religion offers much more than belief, and in some religions (like Judaism) belief matters very little.  Religions offer behavioral systems, practices, rituals, myths, stories, and traditions, all of which are tremendous, irreplaceable cultural resources.

Daniel Dennett, aka Santa Claus.

Some religions are attempting the leap into modernity.  The Dalai Lama has taken an active interest in neuroscience.  My wife’s rabbi is a self-proclaimed atheist.  The Vatican has put out a statement suggesting that Darwinian evolution is not in conflict with the official doctrines of the Catholicism (a nice PR move, but in my opinion it’s only because they don’t fully understand the principles of Darwinian evolution — Daniel Dennett called Darwin’s idea “dangerous” for good reason).  In the long-run, religions are institutions, and they’ll do what they have to in order to survive.  The term “God” will be redefined, as necessary, to keep the pews warm and the tithing buckets full.  Evolutionary biologists (with their logical, literal thinking) are tilting at windmills when they attack religion; they are no match for the nimble, poetic minds of theologians.

As much as I value religions in the abstract, I haven’t yet found one I can deal with personally.  My wife finds the endless rules of Judaism to be invigorating; following them gives her real spiritual satisfaction.  I find them to be bizarre and confusing (maybe this is because I’m not Jewish, but I suspect some Jews would agree with me).

Still, I have liberally borrowed from the world’s religions while devising my own metaprogramming system.  Jesus’s Golden Rule.  Islam’s dislike of debt.  A good chunk of the Buddha’s Eightfold Path.  And at least a few of the Ten Commandments.

Help Yourself

Want to win friends and influence people? Change the spelling of your last name to match that of a world-famous captain of industry!

The self-help movement has been around at least as long as Dale Carnegie.  Decades later, the psychedelic and cross-cultural explorations of the 60’s (Richard Alpert hanging out and dropping acid with Indian gurus, Timothy Leary dropping acid and reading The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Werner Erhard experimenting with Zen Buddhism) added fuel to the fire of the self-help movement.  East meets West meets L.S.D. = Total Transformation of the Human Psyche!  We all know how that turned out.

The modern self-help movement has had its share of both inspired individuals (like Tony Robbins) and charismatic but ultimately abusive (like the late Frederick Lenz).

I’m a fan of Robbins, for example, because his teachings are open (he does sell products and seminars, but he also gives away an enormous amount of content).  Same goes for Steve Pavlina, Les Brown, and even Timothy Ferriss.  All offer up their own insights and behavioral modification (metaprogramming) systems with a “try this and see if it works for you” attitude.  It’s clear they are interested in spreading their message first, in making a living second, and not at all interested in controlling people or accumulating subjugates.

I’m also fascinated by the late anti-guru U.G. Krishnamurti (not to be confused with the more popular J. Krishnamurti).  U.G., by all accounts, was unequivocally an enlightened being.  The interesting bit was his absolute refusal to attempt to teach, pass on, or even recommend his own higher state of consciousness.  Throughout his life, he refused to take on any followers or officially publish any of his writings.  I’ll write about U.G. in more detail in another post.

Frederick Lenz -- charismatic but mad as a hatter.


Sinister Intentions

At the unfortunate intersection between religion and self-help lies the world of cults.  Cult leaders and cult organizations can be spotted by the following attributes.  Stay away!

  • secret, often bizarre teachings
  • brainwashing techniques (sleep deprivation, emotional trauma, isolation, sensory overload)
  • enormous fees required for membership and/or access to teachings
  • requirement to cut off contact from family and/or friends (nonmembers)
  • use coercive methods to control their members (intimidation, blackmail, even violence)

NEVER challenge a hack sci-fi writer to invent a religion -- he might succeed!

Cults often seduce new members by offering up simple, effective metaprogramming techniques.  Scientology offers “clearing,” a method of reliving painful emotional experiences and thus removing their negative subconscious influence.  There’s nothing wrong with clearing — the problems come later, when you’re maxing out your credit cards and babbling on about “operating thetans.”  Frederick Lenz instructed his followers in chakra meditation.  The young, impressionable, and idealistic are especially vulnerable to seduction by cults, but these dangerous organizations are easy to spot if you know what to look for.  They’re not looking to spread a message of truth, love, and higher consciousness; they’re looking for subjugates.

There’s nothing wrong with using somebody else’s self-improvement/behavioral modification/metaprogramming system, either ancient or modern, in whole or in part, as long as you shop around carefully.  Or, you can invent your own.  As a third alternative, if you are already happy with the current state of your habits (and where they are steering you in life), you may not feel compelled to bother with changing yourself.

Baby with the Bathwater

The field of self-improvement is full of half-truths, hucksters, pseudoscience, charlatans, snake oil and snake oil salesmen, bizarre beliefs, true believers, smelly hippies, narcissistic baby boomers, pitiful cases, get-rich-quick schemers, crystal wavers, cult leaders, and weird dieters, and is thus always ripe for parody (my favorite is this video parody of The Secret).  A down-to-earth, rational person could be excused for steering clear of the self-improvement realm altogether.

On the other hand, energy we invest in improving our own habits (programs), including habits of thought and perception, is probably one of the best investments we can make in our own lives.  Even minor improvements can yield enormous dividends in the long-run.

I’ll continue to share my thoughts about metaprogramming in this blog, including my core metaprogramming principles (not as a prescriptive, but rather in the spirit of open-source code sharing).  As a quick preview, I’ll offer that my own principles involve the following areas:

  1. Maintaining a High Quality of Consciousness
  2. Taking Radical Responsibility for All Your Actions, and Every Aspect Of Your Life
  3. Creating a System of Functional Vitality

Page 7 of 13

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén